Robin Hood

:

Season 1
Season #: 3, 2, 1
User Score
7.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 93 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 70 out of 93
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 93
  3. Negative: 14 out of 93
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. GeorgeD
    Apr 22, 2007
    2
    I want so much too like this show but it is absolutely infested with liberal cliche. The last dreadful episode I saw was a pitiful morality play on torture hoping I will sob boo-hoo for the terrorists held at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Please, drop the sanctimonious moralizing and focus on the action-adventure.
  2. Sally
    Apr 29, 2007
    0
    How does one say "sucks" in Middle English?
  3. RayW
    May 6, 2007
    1
    I was really looking forward to this series, and I'm a big Robin Hood fan. But the series might as well be called "Law and Order: Sherwood Forest". Every episode is a ripped-from-the-headlines PC take on contemporary events. And you get to watch a guy that looks like he doesn't know how to use a bow play a 12th century Crusader (former Crusader actually) and hereditary member of I was really looking forward to this series, and I'm a big Robin Hood fan. But the series might as well be called "Law and Order: Sherwood Forest". Every episode is a ripped-from-the-headlines PC take on contemporary events. And you get to watch a guy that looks like he doesn't know how to use a bow play a 12th century Crusader (former Crusader actually) and hereditary member of the ruling class lecture you on morality.… Expand
  4. NikJ.
    Jan 7, 2009
    3
    When I first saw this series promoted I was hoping for a production of the quality of
  5. Brooks22
    Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Most people in the English speaking world have an idea of Robin Hood; a montage of all those traits ingrained from years of stories, movies and tv shows. We know the story. Minor lord returns from the aiding of King Richard in the Crusades to find extreme corruption, graft and abuse of the citizenry in his once idyllic home...robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He's charming, witty, and a damn good shot with a bow; as well as being a man of principle and a leader of men. That about sums it up. The problem with everyone knowing the story is that everyone takes it for granted that everyone knows it. Confused? Probably about as confused as I am over the complete laziness in writing by the writers of this show. A good show grasps your attention from the first, and slowly stews into a thick and creamy sauce of excellence that develops the audiences love for the characters and their eccentricities as well as the style of that particular series. It has a sort of "getting to know you" type courtship phase that strengthens the show / watcher bond. Said good show also throws wrenches in the conventional storytelling machine and places those characters in new and fresh situations that they can find their way, merrily (as in the case of a telling of Robin Hood), out of. What a good show does NOT do is take for granted its audience's knowledge of the characters and hence forgo the entire characterization process. (Here comes Robin, cue overly-heroic music to let everyone know that he's our protagonist!) It also shouldn't deck out the actors of a period show set in the middle ages in polyester hoods, but that's certainly a lesser failure than inserting new characters into a beloved and well-known legend because you feel that Robin could use a sidekick and the show some comic relief. Comic relief? Seriously, it's called relief because it's supposed to relieve all the seriousness and drama surrounding it. I shouldn't cringe every time the so-called Relief steps in and throws in his quib. That is NOT relief believe me. Plus, why the producers determined that there needed to be a comic relief anyway is a complete mystery to me because where is the drama? It's not like the whole production isn't laden with camp: from the sound-effects, to the cheesy over-the-top music, the laughable dialogue, the incredibly poor sets and costumes, one could go on for paragraphs of the comedic value of this show. BBC's Robin Hood fails because it is lazy and unimaginative. It pushes no boundaries save a thinly veiled attempt to placate the people of Middle Eastern descent through the use of interjections of the wrongness of the Crusades from Robin Hood's own mouth. How lazy? you ask. First episode: standard coming home from the Crusades bit. Ok. Fair enough.
    Second episode: the framing of Robin Hood and the subsequent turning on him by the people who are supposed to love him. Hmmm. Shouldn't that be about a dozen episodes down the road, you know, after you've established that Robin and his band have established a good relationship with those poor sods?
    Third episode: Robin Hood finds a baby! I have nothing else to say. That's where I stopped watching because from there it is blatantly obvious that this show is terrible. The finding a baby episode? Really? Where did you come with that writers? Must have thought about that one all day. I am ashamed for the profession, but more so for the producers of this rot that enabled its creation and its spooning to the public. Thanks for ruining a solid premise.
    So, the show gets a 3 from me: 1 point for the Saracen Bow, 1 point for the Scimitar and the remaining point out of my generosity for liking Maid Marian and Guy of Gisborne. Marian is sexy despite a strong jaw, and Guy of Gisborne lays it on so thick that it is hilarious. Rock on Guy! Earn that paycheck.    … Expand
  6. CharredToast
    Oct 5, 2008
    0
    The show is bromidic, ridiculous, but not funny. Robin Hood tries to be serious, but it is hard to take it serious when the show mixes in modern day phrases, people wear polyester prints, and it preaches a laughable morality. Let me get this straight? It would be immoral for Robin Hood to kill the sheriff who tortures, oppresses, and murders people. I found myself saying
  7. KhristianR
    Oct 1, 2008
    3
    This is like the MTV version of Robin Hood. Its bad, the history is wrong. There's nothing wrong with updating a story and injecting it with modernism but this does it awfully and at times its cringy. There's too much wrong about it. Its like a safe version, it doesn't know whether to be serious, to be humourous, it fails on most of the levels. If you like Robin Hood and This is like the MTV version of Robin Hood. Its bad, the history is wrong. There's nothing wrong with updating a story and injecting it with modernism but this does it awfully and at times its cringy. There's too much wrong about it. Its like a safe version, it doesn't know whether to be serious, to be humourous, it fails on most of the levels. If you like Robin Hood and want a serious version watch the one made in the mid 80s. If you want a comedy version, then Tony Robinson's version.… Expand
  8. ArielB
    Mar 8, 2007
    3
    Ridiculously soap operatic take on the famous tale, with as many gaping black holes in the plot as in outer space. Look for strange updates on medieval clothing and speech!
  9. Christina
    Apr 6, 2007
    2
    I wanted to like this series, but couldn't even make it through a whole episode. I was bored and the clumsy cliches didn't help either. I grant that it may be difficult to be groundbreaking when you are telling a story that has been told before. But if you aren't going to turn a story on its head, you need extraordinarily charismatic actors and wickedly clever writing to I wanted to like this series, but couldn't even make it through a whole episode. I was bored and the clumsy cliches didn't help either. I grant that it may be difficult to be groundbreaking when you are telling a story that has been told before. But if you aren't going to turn a story on its head, you need extraordinarily charismatic actors and wickedly clever writing to keep things interesting. This series has neither of those things.… Expand
  10. Andrew
    Aug 20, 2007
    1
    First couple of episodes are very promising. We're presented with the "James Bond" of Robin Hoods - being cool, almost witty, charming the ladies and generally kicking-bottom. But not even a quater of the way into the series, that character (as well as all the supporting characters and the entire show) is reduced to some sort of emo drama drivel with contrived, unrealistic plot lines First couple of episodes are very promising. We're presented with the "James Bond" of Robin Hoods - being cool, almost witty, charming the ladies and generally kicking-bottom. But not even a quater of the way into the series, that character (as well as all the supporting characters and the entire show) is reduced to some sort of emo drama drivel with contrived, unrealistic plot lines and cringe-worthy dialog. A huge disappointment.… Expand
  11. LatrobeP.
    Aug 24, 2009
    3
    Did you ever wonder what the A-Team would look like if: 1. They were wearing tights 2. They were lead by a girly man better suited to a role on the WB or a tween vampire movie 3. Mr T was even more illiterate and not half as charming Well, this is it - much "sturm und drang" lots of swords, lots of arrows, but no dead bad guys - feh
  12. PeterJ
    Mar 23, 2007
    0
    Awful - by far the worst Robin Hood ever done - awful acting; awful accents; ridiculous make-up; Yeek!!!

Awards & Rankings

30
#30 Best TV Season of 2007
32
#32 Most Discussed TV Season of 2007
36
#36 Most Shared TV Season of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
70

Generally favorable reviews - based on 9 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 9
  3. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Alynda Wheat
    75
    For the willing, it's still a story worth hearing. [2 Mar 2007, p.64]
  2. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Barry Garron
    70
    If there is a chink to this series' armor, it is in the casting of Armstrong in the title role.
    Read full review
  3. People Weekly
    Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    63
    I wish the show had a little more verisimilitude--the peasants' homes look cheap, not poor--but it's zippy mindless fun. [5 Mar 2007, p.37]
See all critic reviews »